Social Influence

Question 1

AO3 — Milgram, for Social Support as an explanation of Resistance To Social Influence:

Answer 1

When a disobedient peer was introduced to a Milgram’s Shock Experiment variation, obedience dropped to 10%.

Question 2

AO3 — Lucas et al.:

Answer 2

Research support for Asch’s task difficulty variation. Conformity rates increased with harder maths tasks.

Question 3

AO3 — Asch’s variation, for NSI:

Answer 3

A ‘late’ participant wrote down answers while confederates spoke their (wrong) answers. Conformity dropped to 12.5% without normative group pressure (confrere rates can’t react to the participants answer).

Question 4

AO3 — Fromm, for Zimbardo’s SPE:

Answer 4

Said Zimbardo exaggerated conclusations. 1/3 harsh, 1/3 neutral, 1/3 actively try to help.

Question 5

AO3 — Banuazizi & Movahedi, for Zimbardo’s SPE:

Answer 5

Said participants play-acted to media stereotypes. E.g. one participant said they thought of Cool Hand Luke.

Question 6

AO3 — McDermont, for Banuazizi & Movahedi:

Answer 6

90% of the ‘prisoners’ thought the mock prison was real. Therefore not play-acting. (BUT, guards still could have been.)

Question 7

AO3 — Haslam & Reicher, for Zimbardo’s SPE:

Answer 7

Suggest Social Identity Theory as an alternate explanation to Confomity to Social Roles, that active identification causes them to take on their roles, that it’s not automatic.

Question 8

AO3 — Haslam et al., for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 8

Found: participants didn’t obey ‘Prod 4’. Suggested they identified with the study’s scientific aims (Social Identity Theory), they weren’t blindly obeying authority.

Question 9

AO3 — Beauvois, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 9

Research support, reliability. On a TV documentary/game show, 80% of participants continued to the max. voltage, and exhibited similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants.

Question 10

AO3 — Orne & Holland, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 10

Said participants realised the shocks were fake, so were play-acting (responding to demand characteristics).

Question 11

AO3 — Perry, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 11

Tapes of participants showed 50% thought the shocks were fake.

Question 12

AO3 — Sheridan & King, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 12

Research support, counter to Orne & Holland, and Perry. Participants gave real shocks to a puppy.

Question 13

AO3 — Baumbind, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 13

Said since participants deceived, couldn’t give informed consent.

Question 14

AO3 — Bickman, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 14

Research support. A field experiment showing the power of the uniform.

Question 15

AO1 — Bickman, 1974:

Answer 15

Three IV variations: guard uniform, milkman uniform, no uniform. He found that obedience was greater when he wore a higher-authority uniform, than lower-authority, then none.

Question 16

AO3 — Meeus & Raaijmakers, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:

Answer 16

Research support in a cross-cultural Milgram-style study, showing generalisability to other cultures.

Question 17

AO1 — Meeus & Raaijmakers:

Answer 17

Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee. Decreased obedience with decreased proximity to authority figure.

Question 18

AO3 — Smith & Bond, for Meeus & Raaijmakers:

Answer 18

Pointed out that most supporting studies carried out in countries similar to the US, so Milgram’s Shock Experiment may still not be generalisable to (e.g.) collectivist cultures.

Question 19

AO3 — Bashir et al., evaluating Social Change:

Answer 19

Said people resist social change because minority are seen negatively (e.g. ‘tree-huggers’).

Question 20

AO3 — Mackie, evaluating Deeper Processing, Stage 3 of Social Change:

Answer 20

Majority views are processed more deeply than minority views. This challenges a central feature of minority influence.

Question 21

AO3 — Martin et al., for the Process of Social Change:

Answer 21

Participants exposed to the minority view resisted the majority view. BUT, IRL majority holds more power.

Question 22

AO3 — McGhee & Teevan, for NSI:

Answer 22

nAffiliates (people with a greater need for social relationships) want to be liked (NSI) so conform more. So, NSI influences conformity.

Question 23

AO3 — Orne & Holland, for Milgram’s Variations:

Answer 23

Some procedures were especially contrived so the obedience wasn’t genuine. Therefore, decreased internal validity.

Question 24

AO3 — Mandel, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment(s):

Answer 24

Danger of the situational perspective (situational explanation for obedience). Said it gives an obedience alibi for destructive behaviours.

Question 25

AO3 — Rank & Jacobson, for the Agentic State explanation of obedience:

Answer 25

Rank & Jacobson’s nurses (and some of Milgram’s participants) disobeyed. It cannot explain this disobedience.

Question 26

AO3 — Mandel, for Agentic State as an explanation of Obedience:

Answer 26

Police Battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively. It can’t explain this.

Question 27

AO3 — 2 studies, for Legitimacy of Authority:

Answer 27

Kilham & Mann’s study in Australia — only 16% obeyed. Mantell’s study in Germany — 85% obeyed. The different societal structures create differences in obedience. These cultural differences are explained by Legitimacy of Authority.

Question 28

AO3 — Rank & Jacobson, for Legitimacy of Authority:

Answer 28

It can’t explain all disobedience. The nurses were in a hierarchical structure, but didn’t obey legitimate authority.

Question 29

AO3 — Christie & Jahoda, for Authoritarian Personality as an Explanation of Obedience:

Answer 29

Said the F-Scale was politically biased. It is designed to measure fascism, far-right extremism, but there are leftist authoritarians.

Question 30

AO3 — Greenstein, for Authoritarian Personality:

Answer 30

The F-Scale as a tool measuring AP and fascism is flawed due to response bias, and so not useful. Yet it is the basis of AP.

Question 31

AO3 — Albrecht et al., for Social Support explanation of Resistance to Social Influence:

Answer 31

IRL support. A ‘buddy’ helps people resist peer pressure to smoke.

Question 32

AO3 — Gamson et al., for Social Support as an explanation for Resistance to Social Influence:

Answer 32

When participants were in a group, there was decreased obedience to an oil company’s order.

Question 33

AO1 — Allen & Lavine’s variation, of Asch’s Line Judgement Task:

Answer 33

2 conditions. 1 = dissenter with normal eyesight (no glasses) => 64% resisted. 2 = dissenter with poor eyesight (bottle lense glasses) => 36% resisted.